Dozens of retired generals, admirals back Iran nuclear deal

U.S. Secretary of State John F. Kerry speaks at a Reuters Newsmaker event Tuesday in New York on the nuclear agreement with Iran. (Brendan McDermid/Reuters)

Three dozen retired generals and admirals released an open letter Tuesday supporting the Iran nuclear deal and urging Congress to do the same.

Calling the agreement “the most effective means currently available to prevent Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons,” the letter said that gaining international support for military action against Iran, should that ever become necessary, “would only be possible if we have first given the diplomatic path a chance.”

The release came as Secretary of State John F. Kerry said U.S. allies were “going to look at us and laugh” if the United States were to abandon the deal and then ask them to back a more aggressive posture against Iran.

Not only would U.S. global credibility be undermined, Kerry said, but also the dollar’s position as the world’s reserve currency would be threatened.

“It’s not going to happen overnight,” Kerry said in a public question-and-answer session at Reuters news service headquarters in New York . “But I’m telling you, there’s a huge antipathy out there” to U.S. leadership. Pointing to efforts by Russia and China to join forces with rising, nonaligned powers, he said that “there’s a big bloc out there, folks, that isn’t just sitting around waiting for the United States to tell them what to do.”

Read more at The Washington Post

Could Obama Have Gotten More From Iran With Additional, Crippling Sanctions?

WASHINGTON – Critics of the nuclear deal that major world powers struck with Iran this week have largely based their case on a counterfactual. Had President Barack Obama imposed sanctions on Iran that were more aggressive -- “crippling,” even -- then, the theory goes, he would have extracted more favorable concessions.

This argument is meant, in part, to reinforce the idea that a third option existed between the two Obama outlined -- that is, between military confrontation and the agreement that was ultimately struck. But would it actually have been practical?

According to experts in the subject, including those who worked on Iran sanctions, the answer is basically no.

There are a host of reasons why. Some of them are technical: Sanctions need to be targeted to be effective, and most of the big-ticket items had already been hit. Another reason is geopolitical: The harder the U.S. pushed for sanctions, the more it risked cracking the international support for the sanctions regime. And then there is the issue of timing. Simply put, sanctions were a card in the U.S. foreign policy deck. When Iran decided to enter negotiations for sanctions relief, the U.S. had to play that hand.

“What happens when the other side says yes?” said Joe DeThomas, who spent three years at the State Department during the Obama administration working on sanctions against both Iran and North Korea. “There were negotiating positions on the table. And when the other side comes back and says 'We are prepared to agree to that,' what kind of negotiation do you have when you say, 'Ah, no, we decided we are going to break your other leg and we are going to renege'?”

The Huffington Post spoke with DeThomas and Elizabeth Rosenberg, who served as an assistant secretary for terrorist financing and financial crimes at the Treasury Department during the Obama administration, about whether additional sanctions might have procured a better Iran deal. These interviews were conducted separately, but the questions were the same in both cases. Below is the final product, slightly edited.

 The conclusion of the Iran nuclear talks, on July 14.

How difficult would it have been to actually get tougher sanctions against Iran into place?

Elizabeth Rosenberg: Tougher sanctions require international collaboration. Right now, while there may have been an appetite among a number of policymakers in the United States for tougher sanctions, the appetite is not there among a number of really important international financial jurisdictions. And if they don’t go along, they become weak links or avenues for circumvention for Iran.

Joe DeThomas: I guess you could say, ‘Well, we could have put a full trade embargo on Iran and no oil sales. No sales of any goods of any kind. Some kind of massive economic embargo.’ I don’t know of anybody outside of Israel who would have supported that. I don’t know of any other country who would have gone willingly there.

So when you say tougher sanctions, the only way they could have been done would have been, in effect, unilateral U.S. sanctions that we leveraged the rest of the world into supporting.

Was that possible?

JD: I don’t think it would have been possible to go much farther than the sanctions that exist now without a major confrontation with another major economic player.

Why not maintain the multilateral sanctions regime and make our unilateral sanctions against Iran more aggressive?

ER: That, to me, sounds... symbolic and not necessarily economically effective. Unilateral sanctions on Iran restrict U.S. people and companies from doing business with Iranian entities. But they already can’t do business with those entities, because of the embargo we have had for decades. It is the secondary-effect sanctions that have had a huge economic impact. But imposing more secondary sanctions would come down hard on our allies, including other P5+1 negotiating partners. It wouldn’t have gone over well with them.

JD: If you want to see an example of what could happen, go back to the '90s, when we and the Europeans disagreed about U.S. unilateral sanctions on Iran, and we came very close to a U.S.-European trade war over them. And we ended up having to blink.

So we would have risked breaking up the international coalition even if we had done more unilateral sanctions?

ER: Yes.

JD: You have to draw a line at the [Hassan] Rouhani election [as president of Iran]. Once that election happened, it became clear to the Iranians that they had to do something about sanctions. So the sanctions were effective. They did their job. It persuaded the Iranians that they had to cut a deal.

Now, the question is: At the point where before the Iranians started to move, were we running up against the end of marginal utility of more sanctions? That’s hard to say. The fact of the matter is we had hit the main things.

And those were?

JD: Oil sales and the movement of money.

 President of the Islamic Republic of Iran Hassan Rouhani.

 Were there other things we could have theoretically targeted?

ER: Theoretically, you could have shut down all remaining Iranian oil exports. But in order for that to work and create more economic pressure on Iran, that means the remaining oil purchasers from Iran would have to participate. That means asking our close treaty allies -- who, by the way, are in difficult economic straits -- like Japan, South Korea, China, Turkey [and] India to participate. And the Chinese, for example, have been very clear that they are not interested in more cuts. Then you are playing a game of chicken, and it looks really bad if the U.S. can’t make good on the threat of sanctions if China decides to walk. It doesn’t just look bad -- it hurts the diplomatic-pressure tactic and it undermines the strategy.

And what happens if China does walk?

ER: The international coalition devolves. The P5+1 talks are derailed. Whether or not you can pull them back together is an open question. And in the meantime, Iran is charging towards a bomb.

So, additional sanctions could only have worked if Iran was acting belligerent and the international community agreed it needed to respond?

JD: There you have a different scenario. There you have everybody in this town and in the world saying, 'What can we do next?' That’s an alternative history. It’s not one I can examine.

Why not just let the sanctions linger a little longer before negotiating with Rouhani? 

ER: The idea you can maintain the status quo is a fallacy. These sanctions have a shelf life. They get stale. Iran is far more motivated than anyone else in the Gulf about reforming their economy, and they are very good at sophisticated barter arrangements to evade these sanctions.

They wouldn’t have been more likely to make concessions?

JD: Well, what happens when the other side says yes? You know? There were negotiating positions on the table. And when the other side comes back and says 'We are prepared to agree to that,' what kind of negotiation do you have when you say, 'Ah, no, we decided we are going to break your other leg and we are going to renege'?

So you had to move forward at that time or risk not moving forward at all?

JD: At that point you have to ask, 'Will we cut a deal or can't we?' There is an old line in arms control negotiations: Can I think of a better deal than this one? Yes. Could I have negotiated it? No.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu went to the U.S. Congress to argue that more sanctions would produce a better Iran nuclear deal.

Basically what you’re saying is, everything had to align from a geopolitical sense -- not just in Iran or America, but globally?

JD: Yes, you had to have a whole series of things happen. Now I have to give credit to the people who advocated sanctions, the people on the Hill in particular who pushed the administration hard. I’m not sure how quickly the administration would have been ready to go to these really hard sanctions without the very strong momentum from the Hill.

What was the administration’s resistance?

JD: I don’t think it was resistance so much as these are the big cards to play. You are saying to yourself, ‘OK, we have to make sure we are not sanctioning ourselves, that we are sanctioning the Iranians.' And that required a lot of heavy-duty lifting.

ER: In many respects, the threat of sanctions is much more powerful than the actual execution. Because once you have done it, it is a known commodity and you can immediately think about how to circumvent them or find loopholes. Whereas the threat of sanctions can be much bigger than the actual sanction itself.

And what happens if the sanctions don’t work?

JD: Well then, you have to go to other options, don’t you? That’s the thing -- if you play your big card, you better be able to live with it.

And the big card we played couldn’t have gotten more?

ER: I think it is definitely credible to say these sanctions were imposed for nuclear-related concerns and they have successfully achieved a nuclear deal. It is too bad that this deal didn’t also speak to the variety of other concerns related to Iran. But that is not part of this.

JD: Any negotiator will walk away from the table saying, 'Was there any more toothpaste in that tube? If I had just squeezed for another five seconds, would I have gotten more toothpaste out?' You always ask yourself that. I don’t care if you’re buying a car or if you are negotiating a major arms control deal. That is always going to be a question that you probably can’t answer for years.

Source: The Huffington Post

Obama: This Deal Is 'Our Best Means' Of Keeping Iran From Obtaining Nuclear Weapons

President Barack Obama on Wednesday defended the nuclear deal that he and five other world powers negotiated with Iran, telling a gathering of the press corp at the White House that it "our best means of assuring that Iran does not get a nuclear weapon."

“The bottom line is this. This nuclear deal meets the national security interests of the United States and our allies," Obama said. "It prevents the most serious threat of Iran obtaining a nuclear weapon… that’s why this deal makes our country safer and secure.”

"We have a historic chance to secure a safer and more secure world, an opportunity that may not come again in our lifetimes," Obama added.

Obama argued the alternative -- the risk of a regional nuclear arms race -- would endanger national security.

Under the deal that was finalized in Vienna on Tuesday, Iran promises to cap and downsize its controversial nuclear program in exchange for sweeping economic sanctions relief. Once the deal is implemented, Iran will have disposed of much of its stockpile of uranium and slashed the number of centrifuges it spins. It will also be bound to inspections by the UN and subject to the reimposition of sanctions if it is discovered that it has reneged on its commitments.

While the Iran deal is now finalized, it still faces challenges, though perhaps not existential ones.

The deal will get a vote of approval or disapproval in Congress. And though the president can veto whatever lawmakers decide, and though it is likely that he will have enough votes to sustain that veto, it still would be a rebuke for the legislative branch to reject his main diplomatic achievement. 

“Based on the facts, the majority of Congress should approve this deal,” Obama said, when asked about that possibility.

The president said he looked forward to Congressional debate on the deal.

"I expect the debate to be robust, and that's how it should be. This is an important issue," Obama said.

"I hope we don't lose sight of the larger picture -- the opportunity that this agreement represents," Obama added.

Critics of the deal warn that it won't effectively curb Iran's nuclear ambitions and would essentially help the country finance regional terrorism.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu called the agreement "a historic mistake" immediately after the deal was announced Tuesday. Several Republicans in Congress also expressed disappointment in the deal, including Sen. Tom Cotton (R-Ark.), who penned a letter in March urging Iranian leaders to not work with Obama on a deal.

Obama said none of his critics have presented their own ideas about how to keep Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons.

"None of them have presented to me or the American people a better alternative," he said.

Obama also addressed concerns that over the course of five and eight years, the embargo on arms and ballistic missile shipments to Iran would go away. He didn’t attempt to downplay those concerns, saying he shared them and noting that it could prompt additional conflict and chaos in the region. But he also noted that there were additional United Nation’s mechanisms to keep Iran in check on this front and framed it as a victory that negotiators were able to get those embargoes extended as far as they did.

Obama also acknowledged the points that some of his critics have made about remaining concerns about Iran’s behavior. But he argued the goal of the deal wasn’t to deal with those issues, but rather to stop the country’s development of a nuclear bomb.

“Iran still poses challenges to our interests and our values both in the region and around the world,” Obama said. “So I can say with confidence, but more importantly nuclear experts can say with confidence, that Iran will not be in a position to develop a nuclear bomb. We will have met our number one priority. Now we'll still have problems with Iran's sponsorship of terrorism, its funding of proxies like Hezbollah that threaten Israel and the region… and my hope is that building on this deal, we can continue to have conversations with Iran that incentivizes them to behave differently in the region, to be less aggressive, less hostile, more cooperative, to operate the way we expect nations of the international community to behave.”

For more on the Iran nuclear deal, see more at The Huffington Post. 

Iran Nuclear Talks Hit Final Stage

VIENNA (AP) — An Iran nuclear agreement appeared likely within hours, diplomats said late Monday after a day in which American and Iranian negotiators appeared to be struggling to clear final obstacles and looking like they'd miss their fourth deadline in less than two weeks.

Three diplomats familiar with the talks said the announcement could come early Tuesday, possibly during pre-dawn hours in Vienna. One said some of the top officials involved in the negotiation needed to leave Austria's capital in the morning, thus hastening the declaration.

The diplomats weren't authorized to speak publicly on the status of the negotiations and demanded anonymity. Their reports of a breakthrough capped a seesaw day of developments that started with high hopes for an accord. The mood soured as vexing questions including the future of a U.N. arms embargo on Iran proved troublesome.

As a midnight target for a deal approached in Vienna, diplomats said the nuts and bolts of the written nuclear accord had been settled days ago. And Iranian President Hassan Rouhani briefly raised expectations of an imminent breakthrough by proclaiming on Twitter: "Iran Deal is the victory of diplomacy & mutual respect over the outdated paradigm of exclusion & coercion. And this is a good beginning."

Minutes later, Rouhani's tweet was deleted. He then retransmitted it, adding the word "If" in front of "Iran Deal" to reflect that negotiators weren't there yet. The proposed pact would impose long-term and verifiable limits on Iran's nuclear program and provide the Islamic Republic tens of billions of dollars in relief from international sanctions.

At the White House, press secretary Josh Earnest said the talks were "making genuine progress," and the American negotiating team under Secretary of State John Kerry would remain in Vienna as long as the negotiations advanced. If a deal wasn't reached Monday, he said, the 20-month-old provisional constraints on Iran's enrichment of possible bomb-making material and other nuclear activity would remain in force as the diplomacy continued. The current round of talks is already in its 17th day.

Already Sunday, diplomats spoke of clinching the complete agreement within hours, only to then say the final signoff would have to come the following day. As Monday evening arrived, they offered a similar refrain.

"No deal on Monday, nuclear agreement possible on Tuesday," Iran's state-run Press TV said in a bulletin attributed to Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif.

The U.N. ban on Iran importing or exporting conventional weapons wasn't clearly defined when world powers and Tehran reached a framework deal in April.

A U.S. statement issued at the time said the final agreement would result in "the comprehensive lifting of all U.N. Security Council sanctions" on Iran, which could be interpreted to include the arms embargo. But the U.S. also said at the time that "important restrictions on conventional arms and ballistic missiles" would be incorporated in any new U.N. guidelines for Iran.

Washington wants to maintain the ban on importing and exporting weapons, concerned that an Iran flush with cash from the nuclear deal would expand its military assistance for Syrian President Bashar Assad's government, Yemen's Houthi rebels, the Lebanese militant group Hezbollah and other forces opposing America's Mideast allies such as Saudi Arabia and Israel.

Iranian leaders say the embargo must end as their forces are combating regional scourges such as the Islamic State. And they're getting support from both Russia and China, who want at least a partial lifting of the restrictions. Moscow, in particular, hopes to expand military cooperation and arms sales to Tehran, including the long-delayed transfer of S-300 advanced air defense systems — a move long opposed by the United States.

Diplomats reported at least two other issues beside the arms embargo proving difficult: How to finalize a long-stymied U.N. investigation of alleged nuclear weapons work by Tehran and Iran's demand that any U.N. Security Council resolution approving the broader deal no longer describe Iran's nuclear activities as illegal.

On the International Atomic Energy Agency's probe, the Iranians insist they have never worked on weapons and top Iranian officials say military sites and nuclear scientists are off-limits to investigators. On the legality of its program, it hopes to receive positive recognition of its diplomatic effort with the six world powers on the other side of the negotiating table — with a quick lifting of U.N. sanctions without the stain of being adjudged in violation of the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty.

Some diplomats expressed exasperation.

"There should not be an extension in the talks," Zarif said in remarks carried by Iran's official IRNA news agency. Later, from the balcony of the ornate manor-turned-hotel hosting the talks, he told reporters that negotiators are "sleepy and overworked."

___

Associated Press writer Nasser Karimi contributed from Tehran.

Source: The Huffington Post

The Iran Deal and the Prague Agenda

Pool via Getty Images

As we near what may be the endgame of the current negotiations with Iran, I am reminded of the place where President Obama announced the overarching strategy that helped produce this moment: Prague. After stating his readiness to speak to Iran in a Democratic primary debate in 2007, and following that up postelection in 2009 with a series of initial statements directed to the Iranians, the President chose the Czech capital to lay out his vision of dealing with the dangers of nuclear weapons in April 2009. That included emphasizing that Iran would not be permitted to obtain a nuclear weapon on his watch: "Rules must be binding. Violations must be punished. Words must mean something. The world must stand together to prevent the spread of these weapons." 

As a result of that 2009 speech, the President's nuclear strategy became known as the Prague Agenda. I had the privilege to travel with President Obama back to Prague in April 2010 to witness the signing of a major accomplishment in another area under the Prague Agenda, namely the New START treaty. By the following year, April 2011, I was in Prague as U.S. Ambassador. That year, and in the each year that followed, we held an annual Prague Agenda conference to assess the steps that had been taken and the challenges that lay ahead. 

In the years since, there has been steady progress in each of the four main areas the President laid out on that spring day in Prague in 2009. New START was a step forward on his first objective, to reduce the risks posed by existing nuclear weapons. Another goal, preventing nuclear terror by safeguarding materials and improving safety, has since been the subject of a series of successful Nuclear Security Summits in Washington, Seoul and the Hague.

I saw first-hand the President's personal commitment to a third objective articulated in Prague: to promote the peaceful use of nuclear energy. I was, for example, present in the Oval Office in October 2011 when the President and the Czech Prime Minister met. President Obama advocated for the use of civil nuclear power as a part of the Czech energy mix (and also to achieve energy independence from Russia). That approach has been replicated in administration policy supporting civil nuclear energy in the United States and around the world.

Now, with the possible Iran deal, progress under the Prague Agenda's final prong is in reach: holding to account a state which had violated its nuclear obligations under international treaties. I am not of the school that believes the President needs to secure an Iran deal to build his legacy. That was never the case. Having known him for almost a quarter of a century, since we were law students together, and having worked for him for six years, first in the White House and then as ambassador, I can attest that those kinds of considerations do not enter into critical decisions like this one. Even the President's strongest critics have to admit that legacy is, as a matter of logic, much less of a consideration after the recent breakthroughs on the Affordable Care Act and on Trade Promotion Authority. 

Instead, as the comprehensive nature of the Prague Agenda itself suggests, President Obama is pursuing a deal out of principle. He is acting from his conviction that a good agreement with Iran represents another step toward making the U.S., our allies, and the world safe from nuclear terror. It is that ambition that has driven the President's formulation and consistent pursuit of each of the four elements of the Prague Agenda, the obscure aspects just as much as the headline-making ones.

Of course, as the President himself has repeatedly emphasized, the deal must be a good one. That is why I recently joined a bipartisan group of experts convened by the Washington Institute for Near East Peace in signing a statement laying out criteria for what any deal with Iran must at a minimum contain in five core areas: monitoring and verification; possible military dimensions; advanced centrifuges; sanctions relief; and consequences of violations. We also agreed on the importance of complementing any agreement with a strong deterrence policy and a comprehensive regional strategy. I have been encouraged by the warm reception for our statement from all corners, and by the strong tone struck by the American negotiators in Vienna this week. They recognize that willingness to walk away is the surest path to securing a good deal. If such a deal can be struck that meets the criteria in our bipartisan statement, that will be another stride forward under the Prague Agenda -- perhaps the biggest yet. 

Source: The Huffington Post

Four Americans Are Still Trapped In Iran, Deal Or No Deal. Here Are Their Stories.

WASHINGTON -- If the U.S., five other world powers and Iran can finalize a deal this week to restrict the Islamic Republic's nuclear capabilities, America will be well on its way toward a warmer relationship with Iran.

Yet thousands of miles away from the ritzy site of the talks, the 170-year-old Palais Coburg hotel in Vienna, are four reasons why a broad U.S.-Iranian rapprochement -- an unprecedented step, and a nightmare for Israel and American allies in the Sunni Arab world -- remains unlikely for the foreseeable future.

Four American citizens are presently in captivity in Iran. Three who have dual Iranian and American nationality and are therefore considered by Tehran to be under its jurisdiction are known to be in Iranian prisons. The fourth has been missing for seven years and is thought to be held because of ties to the U.S. intelligence community. The Americans' families have spent months advocating for their release, and the Obama administration says it is raising their cases consistently when it meets with Iranian nuclear negotiators, but there have been no signs yet during this final leg of the negotiations that they are any closer to coming home.

For lawmakers, particularly vocal members like Rep. Dan Kildee (D-Mich.) who represent the families, Iran has already taken too long to resolve the issue -- and the time is ripe now, as Americans and Iranians are having rare face-to-face meetings, to put it to rest.

"Iran should release all detained United States citizens immediately and provide any information it possesses regarding any United States citizens that have disappeared within its borders," reads a bipartisan House resolution sponsored by Kildee and passed unanimously by all 435 representatives on June 15. That vote came days after a House Foreign Affairs Committee hearing featuring family members of all four detainees.

Kildee told The Huffington Post in an interview earlier in June that he believes Iran cannot be respected as a legitimate member of the international community until it releases the Americans -- even if it does reach an agreement on its nuclear program.

The connection between the nuclear talks and the captives' future is frustratingly complex. On one hand, it would appear to make sense for the Americans to be mentioned at the table and for the U.S. negotiating team to pressure their Iranian counterparts to secure their release. But, as Kildee warned in his HuffPost interview, that risks creating a perception that the U.S. is willing to grant Iran concessions on its nuclear capabilities in exchange for winning back its citizens. Not only would such a bargain pose a greater long-term risk for international security than a more restrained Iranian nuclear program, it would set a precedent that's unlikely to benefit the U.S. in future dealings with other rogue states.

"No American ... would want his freedom to be exchanged for increased nuclear capabilities in the hands of the Iranian government," Kildee told HuffPost.

That leaves the Americans' fate unclear, regardless of the negotiations' outcome. What does seem certain is that their advocates -- most notably family members who simply want to see their loved ones again -- do not want their cases to be forgotten, particularly if a nuclear deal is reached and positive U.S.-Iran coverage becomes de rigeur.

Here's a rundown of who exactly these captives are and how they became trapped in Iran:

A Dec. 27, 2011, video screengrab made from the Iranian broadcaster IRIB TV shows U.S. citizen Amir Hekmati, accused by Iran of spying for the CIA, in Tehran's revolutionary court. (AP Photo/IRIB/File)

AMIR HEKMATI

Amir Hekmati, 31, has been officially held the longest. A former Marine of Iranian-American descent, he was arrested while on a visit to family in August 2011. Iranian authorities accused him of being a spy -- a charge that would carry the death sentence -- but later dropped that allegation, instead handing him a 10-year sentence for aiding a foreign government.

Ramy Kurdi, the husband of Hekmati's sister Sarah, told HuffPost in June that his family was concerned with securing Amir's freedom, not the complexities of U.S.-Iranian relations or power politics.

"We're not a political family," Kurdi said. "Our message to Iran is we respectfully request his release -- and unconditionally, based on human rights, there's multiple outlets within their legal system to release him and we ask them to do that."

Hekmati's family is now allowed to communicate with him in brief, closely monitored phone calls. Kurdi, his brother-in-law, said his conditions had improved, but that given the length of his time in jail, he now appeared to be losing heart.

In this April 11, 2013, file photo, Jason Rezaian smiles as he attends a presidential campaign event for President Hassan Rouhani, in Tehran, Iran. (AP Photo/Vahid Salemi, File)

JASON REZAIAN

Jason Rezaian is The Washington Post's Tehran bureau chief. He was detained in July 2014 along with his wife and two photojournalists; the other three were eventually released. He now faces a slew of charges, such as espionage and propaganda against Iran, which together could lead to a sentence of 10-20 years in Iranian prison.

"He is being accused of being a master spy when all he was doing was reporting on a country that he loves. So it is very hard for him. Very, very hard for him," Mary Rezaian, his mother, said in June following his second court hearing.

The Guardian reported in March that Rezaian has become a pawn in a tussle between competing power centers within Iran.

His advocates say the explanation for why he was in the country makes more sense than the Iranian accusations. "It's hard to believe that there could be anything legitimate that they could charge him with," his brother, Ali, told HuffPost Live last year.

Saeed Abedini's wife Naghmeh holds a necklace with a photograph of her husband on Capitol Hill in Washington on Tuesday during a House Foreign Affairs Committee hearing with four people whose family members are being held in Iran. (AP Photo/Jacquelyn Martin)

SAEED ABEDINI

A pastor who grew up in Iran, Saeed Abedini has been detained since September 2012. The 35-year-old was convicted for trying to undermine state security -- a charge his advocates see as linked to his efforts to bring together Christians in Iran -- and currently is serving an eight-year sentence.

Christian media and advocacy groups have played a major role in advocating for Abedini's release and documenting what they describe as his abuse in prison.

The pastor's wife, Naghmeh, discussed his case with President Barack Obama in January. She joined HuffPost Live in June to talk about his condition ahead of the deadline for the nuclear talks.

"Iran is breaking its own laws and international law by doing this," she said, citing Iranian prosecutors' focus on Abedini's legally protected gatherings with other Iranian Christians. "He was taken hostage."

An FBI poster displayed during a news conference in Washington on March 6, 2012, that shows various images of retired FBI agent Robert Levinson: on the right, how he would look after five years in captivity; in the center, an image from a video, released by his kidnappers; and on the left, a picture from before he was kidnapped. (AP Photo/Manuel Balce Ceneta)

ROBERT LEVINSON

Robert Levinson's case is the most perplexing of the four. The former FBI agent, now 67, went missing in 2008. His captors remain unknown.

The FBI is offering up to $5 million for any information that might aid in Levinson's return -- a sum that was increased this March from an earlier $1 million.

His son noted the extreme nature of Levinson's case in his testimony to Congress in June.

"My father is the longest-held hostage in American history. No U.S. citizen has been held overseas longer than he has, ever. Our family’s hearts break for the other families here, who have suffered the wrenching agony of having their loved ones away from them for so long all of these years. Yet my father has been held four and a half years longer than any of the others. No family should ever have to go through what we all are going through," Dan Levinson said.

A key complication is that the Iranians' suspicions of Levinson -- unlike their allegations about the other Americans -- were eventually proven correct: He truly was on a U.S. intelligence-gathering mission at the time of his arrest. The Associated Pressand The Washington Post reported in 2013 that the former FBI operative went to Iran at a time when he was talking to the CIA about renewing his multiyear contract with the agency. The agency found that analysts who lacked the authority to approve foreign operations had given Levinson the green light to go to Iran, leading him to believe he was there in a CIA capacity. The CIA eventually held itself responsible for Levinson's situation in Iran and paid his wife $2.5 million, according to the Post.

"My father had a long career serving the United States," Levinson's son told the House Foreign Affairs Committee. "He was still a contractor for the government at the time of his capture, and therefore the U.S. has a moral obligation to help bring him home."

Source: The Huffington Post